Contents
01Key Facts at a Glance
02Important Constitutional Articles
03Organisation of the SC
04Appointment — Judges Cases
05Qualification, Oath & Tenure
06Removal & Impeachment
07Seat & Other Judges
08Constitutional Safeguards
09Jurisdiction — Detailed
10Five Writs
11India vs USA — Constitution & SC Comparison
12Global Comparison
13Supreme Court Advocates
14Mock Mains Questions
01 — Key Facts at a Glance
34
Total Judges (CJI + 33)
65
Retirement Age (years)
5
Judges for Constitution Bench
1950
Year Established
0
Successful Impeachments
System Origin
India follows an Integrated Single System of Courts — adopted from the Government of India Act, 1935. The SC enforces both Central and State laws. Governed by Articles 124–147 in Part V of the Constitution.
Established
The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on 28 January 1950, replacing the Federal Court of India (1937–1950). It was initially housed in the Parliament House before moving to its current building in 1958.
02 — Important Constitutional Articles (Part V)
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Art. 124 | Establishment and Constitution of the Supreme Court; Appointment and removal of judges |
| Art. 125 | Salaries etc. of Judges — Parliament determines; charged on Consolidated Fund of India |
| Art. 126 | Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of India (by President) |
| Art. 127 | Appointment of Ad hoc Judges (by CJI with President’s consent) |
| Art. 128 | Attendance of retired judges of SC/HC at sittings of the Supreme Court |
| Art. 129 | Supreme Court to be a Court of Record; power to punish for contempt |
| Art. 130 | Seat of the Supreme Court — Delhi; CJI can appoint other places (with Presidential approval) |
| Art. 131 | Exclusive Original Jurisdiction — federal disputes between Centre and States |
| Art. 132 | Appellate jurisdiction in constitutional matters (HC certifies substantial question of law) |
| Art. 133 | Appellate jurisdiction in civil matters (HC certifies substantial question of law of general importance) |
| Art. 134 | Appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters (death sentence, life imprisonment, 10 years) |
| Art. 136 | Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) — extraordinary discretionary power against any court/tribunal order |
| Art. 137 | Review Jurisdiction — SC can review its own judgments; second review = Curative Petition |
| Art. 138 | Parliament can enlarge SC’s jurisdiction |
| Art. 139 | Parliament can confer power on SC to issue writs for purposes other than FR enforcement |
| Art. 141 | Law declared by SC is binding on all courts in India (doctrine of precedent / stare decisis) |
| Art. 142 | “Complete Justice” — SC may pass any order/decree necessary in the interest of justice |
| Art. 143 | Advisory Jurisdiction — President may seek SC’s opinion on questions of law or public importance (non-binding) |
| Art. 144 | All civil and judicial authorities must act in aid of the Supreme Court |
| Art. 145 | Rules of Court; Constitution Bench requires minimum 5 judges |
| Art. 146 | Freedom to appoint its own staff; expenses charged on CFI |
| Art. 147 | Interpretation of Part V Chapter IV |
03 — Organisation of the Supreme Court
Number of Judges
- Current sanctioned strength: 34 (1 Chief Justice + 33 other judges)
- Originally 8 (1 CJI + 7 others) in 1950; progressively increased by Parliament
- Parliament can increase or decrease the number by legislation (not a constitutional amendment)
General Structure of Indian Judicial System
Hierarchy (Top → Bottom)
Supreme Court → High Courts (25 HCs) → District Courts (District & Sessions Court) → Sub-ordinate Civil Courts (Subordinate Judge’s Court, Munsiff’s Courts) + Criminal Courts (Court of Sessions, Chief Magistrate’s, Judicial/Executive Magistrates, Panchayat Adalats, Nyaya Panchayats) → In Metropolitan areas: City Civil & Sessions Courts, Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Presidency Small Cause Court
Procedure of Court
- SC makes rules for regulating practice and procedure with the President’s approval
- Constitutional cases / Presidential references (Art. 143) → Constitution Bench of at least 5 judges
- All other cases → Bench of not less than 3 judges
- Judgments delivered in open court
- All judgments by majority vote; dissenting opinions are permissible
- Law declared by SC is binding on all courts within the territory of India (Art. 141)
04 — Appointment of Judges & The Judges Cases
CJI Appointment
By the President after consultation with such judges of the SC and HCs as deemed necessary.By convention: senior-most SC judge is appointed CJI.
Convention was violated twice (Justices A.N. Ray, 1973 and M.H. Beg, 1977), which led to the Second Judges Case cementing the seniority norm.
Other Judges Appointment
By the President after compulsory consultation with CJI and such other judges of SC and HCs as he deems necessary.Post-Second Judges Case: President is bound by Collegium’s recommendation.
Landmark Judges Cases — Evolution of Collegium
| Case | Key Ruling / Principle |
|---|---|
| First Judges Case S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 |
‘Consultation’ does NOT mean ‘concurrence’ — it merely implies exchange of views. President can deviate from CJI’s advice. Executive primacy upheld. |
| Second Judges Case SC Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. UOI, 1993 |
Overruled First Judges Case. Consultation = Concurrence. CJI’s advice binding on President. CJI to consult the 2 senior-most SC judges. Collegium system born. |
| Third Judges Case Presidential Reference, 1998 |
Collegium expanded: CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges. Sole opinion of CJI does NOT constitute consultation. If 2 collegium members oppose, recommendation should NOT be sent to government. |
| NJAC Case (Fourth Judges Case) SC Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. UOI, 2015 |
SC struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 as unconstitutional. Independence of judiciary = part of Basic Structure. Collegium restored. NJAC had 3 eminent persons chosen by PM, CJI and Leader of Opposition — SC found this gave executive undue influence. |
Mains Angle — Collegium vs NJAC
The tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability is a recurring GS-II theme. Criticisms of Collegium: opacity, lack of diversity, no fixed timelines, nepotism allegations. NJAC criticism: executive dominance, political influence. Reform suggestions: Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), disclosing selection criteria, independent secretariat.
05 — Qualification, Oath & Tenure
| Criterion | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Citizenship | Must be a citizen of India |
| HC Judge | Must have served as a judge of one or more High Courts for at least 5 years |
| HC Advocate | Must have been an advocate of one or more High Courts for at least 10 years |
| Distinguished Jurist | In the opinion of the President — no specific years required (broad executive discretion) |
| Minimum Age | NOT PRESCRIBED in the Constitution (compare: minimum age prescribed for President = 35 years) |
| Retirement Age | 65 years. Any dispute regarding age determined by authority as provided by Parliament. |
Oath or Affirmation
Administered by
Before the President, or a person appointed by the President. The judge swears/affirms:
- To bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India
- To uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India
- To duly and faithfully perform duties of the office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will
- To uphold the Constitution and the laws
Tenure of Judges
Note — No Fixed Tenure
The Constitution prescribes NO fixed tenure, but has three provisions: (1) Holds office until age 65; (2) Can resign in writing to the President; (3) Can be removed by the President on recommendation of Parliament.
06 — Removal & Impeachment of Judges
Constitutional Provision
A SC judge can only be removed by the President on grounds of ‘proved misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’, after a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament by Special Majority (Majority of total membership + ⅔ of members present and voting). Governed by Judges Enquiry Act, 1968.
Impeachment Procedure — Step by Step
1
Removal motion signed by ≥ 100 Lok Sabha members OR ≥ 50 Rajya Sabha members submitted to Speaker / Chairman respectively.
2
Speaker / Chairman may admit or refuse to admit the motion.
3
If admitted, a 3-member Inquiry Committee is constituted: (i) a sitting SC judge, (ii) a sitting HC Chief Justice, (iii) a distinguished jurist.
4
Committee investigates the charges. If judge found guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the originating House takes up the motion for debate.
5
Originating House passes motion by Special Majority → passed to the other House.
6
Second House also passes the motion by Special Majority.
7
Address presented to the President, who then issues the removal order.
!
Historical Note: No SC judge has ever been successfully impeached. Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) — motion failed in Lok Sabha (Congress abstained). Justice Soumitra Sen (Rajya Sabha, 2011) — passed RS but resigned before LS vote.
Special Majority Definition
Majority of the total membership of the House (e.g., 273 in LS, 123 in RS) AND majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously.
07 — Seat, Acting CJI, Ad hoc & Retired Judges
Seat of the Supreme Court
- Constitution declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court (Art. 130)
- CJI may appoint other places as seats with Presidential approval
- This provision is optional, not compulsory — SC has so far not sat elsewhere
| Type | Appointed By | Who is Eligible | Situation / Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acting CJI Art. 126 |
President | A judge of the Supreme Court | When CJI’s office is vacant, or CJI is temporarily absent / unable to perform duties |
| Ad hoc Judge Art. 127 |
CJI only, after consulting concerned HC Chief Justice, with prior consent of President | A HC judge qualified for SC appointment | When there is a lack of quorum of permanent judges to hold/continue any session. Ad hoc judge has all SC jurisdiction, powers and privileges; must prioritise SC duties. |
| Retired Judge Art. 128 |
CJI requests (with prior consent of President) | Retired SC or HC judge | Temporary period. Has all SC jurisdiction, powers and privileges. Not deemed a judge of the SC — cannot permanently return. |
08 — Constitutional Safeguards for Independence of SC
| Safeguard | Constitutional Basis & Significance |
|---|---|
| Security of Tenure | Removal only by President via Special Majority in both Houses, on proved misbehaviour/incapacity (Art. 124(4)). Not removable at executive discretion. |
| Fixed Service Conditions | Salaries, allowances, pensions cannot be varied to the judge’s disadvantage after appointment — except during a Financial Emergency (Art. 360). |
| Charged on CFI | Salaries, pensions and all administrative expenses charged on Consolidated Fund of India — not votable by Parliament, ensuring financial independence from legislative pressure. |
| Collegium-Based Appointment | Judges appointed in consultation with members of judiciary itself (CJI + 4 senior-most judges), limiting executive dominance in appointments. |
| Conduct Not Discussable | Conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament or state legislatures except during an impeachment motion (Art. 121). |
| Jurisdiction Cannot be Curtailed | Parliament cannot curtail SC’s jurisdiction — it can only extend it (Arts. 138–139). |
| Ban on Post-Retirement Practice | Retired SC judges cannot plead or act before any court or authority in India (Art. 124(7)). Prevents conflict of interest and “quid pro quo” judgments. |
| Power to Punish for Contempt | SC can punish contempt of itself AND of High Courts and subordinate courts (Art. 129, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971). Civil contempt = wilful disobedience to orders. Criminal contempt = scandalising/interfering with administration of justice. |
| Freedom to Appoint its Staff | SC has complete freedom to recruit its officers and servants (Art. 146); expenses charged on CFI. |
| Separation from Executive | Art. 50 (DPSP) directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive. SC functions free from executive interference in judicial decisions. |
09 — Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — Detailed
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction (Art. 131)
- Between Centre & 2+ States
- Centre + some State/s vs one or more States
- Between 2+ States
- Must involve a question of law (political questions excluded)
- Election disputes: President & Vice-President only
Does NOT extend to: Inter-State Water disputes, Finance Commission matters, ordinary commercial disputes, pre-Constitution treaty disputes
Writ Jurisdiction (Art. 32)
- Issues writs: HC, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Certiorari
- Concurrent with High Courts (not exclusive)
- Citizen can directly approach SC for FR enforcement
- Parliament can confer writ powers for other purposes too (Art. 139)
- Art. 32 itself is a Fundamental Right (Dr. Ambedkar: “heart and soul”)
Appellate Jurisdiction (Arts. 132–136)
- Constitutional: HC certifies substantial question of law needing constitutional interpretation
- Civil: HC certifies substantial question of law of general importance
- Criminal: Death sentence reversed/awarded; HC certifies fit case; life imprisonment/10+ years also included (Parliament-extended)
- SLP (Art. 136): Extraordinary discretionary leave against ANY Indian court/tribunal order except military courts — widest appellate power
Advisory Jurisdiction (Art. 143)
- President can refer any question of law or fact of public importance → SC may or may not advise
- Pre-Constitution treaty disputes → SC must advise
- Advice is non-binding on President
- No advisory jurisdiction in USA — key distinction
- Notable: In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958), Special Courts Bill (1978)
Court of Record (Art. 129)
- SC judgments have evidentiary value
- Recognised as legal precedents — binding under Art. 141
- Power to punish for contempt: simple imprisonment up to 6 months or fine or both
- Can punish contempt of HCs and subordinate courts too
Judicial Review & Revisory
- Judicial Review: Declares Central/State laws and executive orders void if they violate the Constitution (Arts. 13, 32, 131, 136, 143)
- Grounds: infringes FRs; outside competence; repugnant to constitutional provisions
- Phrase “Judicial Review” not used in Constitution — implicit
- Review Petition (Art. 137): SC reviews its own judgment
- Curative Petition: Second review (Rupa Ashok Hurra case, 2002)
Other Powers
- Complete Justice (Art. 142): May pass any order/decree necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter
- Control over Subordinate Courts: Can withdraw cases from HCs; transfer cases from one HC to another; general superintendence over all courts and tribunals
- Enquiry of Conduct (Art. 317): Enquires into conduct of UPSC chairman and members on presidential reference; recommendation for removal is binding on President
- Highest Court of Law: Ultimate interpreter of the Constitution; law is binding on all Indian courts
10 — The Five Writs
| Writ | Literal Meaning | Issued Against | Purpose, Scope & Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | “You may have the body” | Public AND private persons (most widely applicable) | Demands physical production of detained person before court. Protects personal liberty (Art. 21). Can be issued even outside territorial jurisdiction. Suspended during National Emergency (Art. 359). Not a writ of right — court has discretion. Not available if detention is by a court of competent jurisdiction. |
| Mandamus | “We command” | Public bodies, inferior courts, corporations, government officials. NOT against: President, Governors, private persons, superior courts, or to enforce contractual obligations | Directs performance of mandatory public duty. Enforces statutory/constitutional duties. Cannot be issued if duty is discretionary, or against a private individual, or to enforce a private contract. |
| Prohibition | “To forbid” | Inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies ONLY | Preventive in nature — issued before the inferior court makes a final order. Prevents excess of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice. NOT issued against legislative bodies, purely administrative bodies, or superior courts. |
| Certiorari | “To be certified” / “To be informed” | Inferior courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities | Corrective — quashes orders already passed (post-decision). Also called the supervisory writ. Grounds: excess of jurisdiction, jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, error of law apparent on record. Since Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of UP (1962) — also available against purely administrative orders affecting rights. |
| Quo Warranto | “By what authority / warrant” | Any person holding a substantive public office created by the Constitution or law | Challenges the legal right to hold a public office. Can be filed by ANY person (not just the aggrieved party). Does NOT lie against ministerial offices, private offices, or offices held at pleasure of the Crown/executive. Prevents usurpation of public office. |
Prelims Memory Hook
Habeas — Have the body (liberty) | Mandamus — Mandate duty | Prohibition — Prevent (before) | Certiorari — Correct (after) | Quo Warranto — Question authority over office
11 — Comparison: Indian SC vs US Supreme Court
Why This Comparison Matters
The Indian Constitution drew heavily from the US Constitution in structuring the judiciary — yet made significant departures. Understanding these differences is critical for both Prelims (direct MCQs) and Mains (comparative constitutional analysis questions in GS-II).
Comparison of the Supreme Courts
| Parameter | Indian Supreme Court | US Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|
| Established / Source | Art. 124; established 28 January 1950. Replaced Federal Court of India (1937). | Article III of US Constitution; established by Judiciary Act of 1789. First met in 1790. |
| Number of Justices | 34 (1 CJI + 33 others). Parliament can change by legislation. | 9 (1 Chief Justice + 8 Associate Justices). Determined by Congress — no constitutional mandate. “Court packing” debate recurrent. |
| Appointment | By President on Collegium recommendation (CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges). Convention: CJI = senior-most judge. | Nominated by President, confirmed by US Senate (simple majority). Senate Judiciary Committee holds public hearings. Highly politicised. |
| Tenure | Until age 65. Removable only by impeachment (Special Majority of Parliament). | Life tenure (“during good behaviour” — Art. III). Removable only by Senate impeachment. Average tenure far longer than India. |
| Original Jurisdiction | Confined to federal disputes (Centre vs States, between States). Also election disputes of President and VP. | Wider — also covers cases involving ambassadors, consuls, ministers, maritime activities, naval forces. |
| Appellate Jurisdiction | Wide — covers constitutional, civil, and criminal cases. Also extraordinary SLP (Art. 136) against any court/tribunal. | Primarily constitutional cases. Exercises discretionary “certiorari” jurisdiction — accepts only ~1% of petitions filed. No SLP equivalent. |
| Advisory Jurisdiction | Present (Art. 143) — President may refer questions of law or public importance. Advice non-binding. | Absent — declined since 1793 (Chief Justice Jay). Considered contrary to separation of powers. |
| Judicial Review Standard | ‘Procedure established by law‘ (Art. 21) — relatively narrow. Expanded by Basic Structure doctrine (1973). SC can strike down laws violating the Constitution. | ‘Due process of law‘ — includes substantive due process. Wider scope. Established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). SC has struck down more federal/state laws over time. |
| Change in Jurisdiction | Parliament can enlarge SC’s jurisdiction (Arts. 138–139). | Jurisdiction largely fixed by Constitution and Art. III. Congress has limited power to adjust appellate jurisdiction. |
| SLP / Certiorari | Art. 136 SLP — extraordinary discretionary power; SC can grant leave to appeal against any Indian court or tribunal order. | Writ of Certiorari — discretionary. “Rule of Four” — 4 of 9 justices must agree to hear a case. Very restrictive. |
| Writ Jurisdiction | Art. 32 — issues 5 writs (HC, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Certiorari) for FR enforcement. Concurrent with HCs. | Can issue writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus (28 U.S.C. § 2241). Habeas corpus also available in federal courts. No equivalent to Quo Warranto / Prohibition writs at federal level. |
| Court of Record | Art. 129 — SC is a Court of Record. Can punish for contempt of itself and of HCs and subordinate courts throughout the country. | Also a Court of Record. Contempt power limited — each court (federal + state) has its own contempt jurisdiction. No centralized contempt authority. |
| Control over Lower Courts | Superintendence over all courts in India (integrated system). Can transfer cases across HCs. | No supervisory jurisdiction over State courts — dual system. Federal SC controls federal courts; State SCs control state courts independently. |
| Complete Justice Power | Art. 142 — SC may pass any order/decree necessary for “complete justice.” Very wide residual equitable power unique to India. | No equivalent — federal courts have inherent equitable powers but narrower; no explicit “complete justice” constitutional provision. |
| Post-Retirement Practice | Prohibited (Art. 124(7)) — retired SC judges cannot plead or act before any court or authority in India. | Not prohibited — retired justices may engage in other legal/public activities. Life tenure means most serve until death or voluntary retirement. |
| Judicial System Type | Unified / Integrated single pyramid — SC at apex, enforcing both Central and State laws. | Dual (segregated) system — separate federal and state court hierarchies. Federal SC is apex of federal system only. |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Present — SC can strike down constitutional amendments that damage the Basic Structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973). | Absent — no equivalent. Theoretically the entire US Constitution could be replaced through Art. V amendment procedure. |
Key Takeaways for UPSC
- Indian SC has Advisory Jurisdiction; US SC does not — most frequently asked distinction
- ‘Procedure established by law’ (India) vs ‘Due process of law’ (USA) — India’s standard is narrower but Basic Structure doctrine compensates
- India: integrated system; USA: dual system — explains why Indian SC has supervisory power over all courts but US SC does not
- Life tenure (USA) vs age 65 retirement (India) — US justices serve much longer on average
- Art. 142 (Complete Justice) — unique to India; no US equivalent
- Basic Structure Doctrine — unique to India; protects the Constitution against Parliament itself
- Right to Property — still a fundamental right in USA; removed in India by 44th Amendment (1978)
12 — Global Comparison: Judicial Appointment Mechanisms
| Country | Who Appoints | Selection Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| India 🇮🇳 | President | Collegium of CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges recommends. Since 1993. NJAC (2014) was struck down in 2015. |
| United Kingdom 🇬🇧 | 5-member panel | Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) with SC President, deputy, and one member each from JACs of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland. JAC comprises lay persons, judiciary members, bar members. |
| United States 🇺🇸 | President | Nominated by President, confirmed by full US Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee holds public hearings and votes on whether nomination goes to full Senate. |
| Germany 🇩🇪 | Executive + Legislature | Unique election process: half of Federal Constitutional Court judges elected by executive, half by legislature. No single branch dominates. |
| South Africa 🇿🇦 | President | Judicial Services Commission recommends candidates for Supreme Court (apex court). All other judges appointed on its advice. JSC includes diverse representation from civil society. |
Mains Angle — Comparative
UPSC often asks to evaluate the Indian collegium against global models. Key points: India’s model is judiciary-dominant (unlike USA’s executive-legislative confirmation, Germany’s democratic election, UK’s independent commission model). Reforms suggested include adopting a UK-style independent commission with transparent criteria and diverse representation.
13 — Supreme Court Advocates
| Senior Advocates | Advocates-on-Record (AoR) | Other Advocates |
|---|---|---|
| Designated by SC or any HC based on ability, standing at bar, or special knowledge. Requires advocate’s consent. | Only AoRs can FILE any matter or document before the SC. Can file an appearance or act for a party. | Names on roll of any State Bar Council under Advocates Act, 1961. Can appear and argue any matter before SC. |
| Cannot appear in SC without an AoR. Cannot appear in any other court without a junior. Cannot undertake drafting work (pleadings, affidavits, conveyancing) — but can settle matters with a junior. | Must pass AoR examination conducted by SC Registry. Have a unique registration with the SC. | Cannot FILE documents before the SC — only AoRs have that exclusive right. |
14 — Mock Mains Questions
Q1. The collegium system of judicial appointments has been criticised for lack of transparency and accountability. Critically analyse the collegium system and suggest reforms to balance judicial independence with democratic accountability.
Approach: Evolution through Judges Cases (1981→1993→1998→2015 NJAC) → Collegium benefits (independence from executive, Basic Structure protection) → Criticisms (opacity, no diversity, nepotism allegations, no fixed timelines, Memorandum of Procedure pending since 2016) → NJAC concerns (executive/political dominance) → Reforms: transparent criteria, independent secretariat, fixed timelines, representation of SC/ST/women, modified NJAC with judicial majority.
Q2. Examine the role of judicial review in maintaining constitutional supremacy in India. How does the Indian approach to judicial review differ from that of the United States?
Approach: JR under Arts. 13, 32, 131, 136, 143 → Basic Structure doctrine as limit on JR → ‘Procedure established by law’ vs ‘Due process of law’ → Marbury v. Madison (1803) established JR in USA → Substantive due process (USA) widens scope → Indian JR limited but Basic Structure expands it → Judicial overreach vs democratic legitimacy debate.
Q3. “The power to do ‘complete justice’ under Article 142 is both the Supreme Court’s greatest strength and its most controversial power.” Discuss with examples.
Approach: Art. 142 text and scope → Examples of positive use (Bhopal Gas case compensation enhancement, Ayodhya verdict, demonetisation RBI direction, tackling cricket governance) → Criticism: judicial legislation, encroachment on legislative domain, bypassing statutes → Balance argument: equity vs rule of law → Separation of powers concern.
Q4. Discuss the safeguards available under the Indian Constitution for ensuring the independence of the Supreme Court. Do you think the existing safeguards are adequate in the present context?
Approach: List all 10 constitutional safeguards with provisions → Adequacy test: security of tenure (adequate), financial independence via CFI (adequate), collegium (under scrutiny), ban on post-retirement practice (circumvented by tribunals, inquiry commissions), Art. 121 (conduct not discussable in Parliament) → Contemporary challenges: post-retirement appointments, selective case listings, contempt power use → Reforms needed: sunset clause for post-retirement positions, transparency in master of the roster.
Q5. Distinguish between original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, advisory jurisdiction, and writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. Which jurisdiction is described as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution and why?
Approach: Define each jurisdiction with relevant articles → Original = federal disputes (exclusive), electoral (Art. 131) → Appellate = constitutional/civil/criminal/SLP → Advisory = Art. 143, non-binding → Writ = Art. 32, concurrent with HCs → Dr. Ambedkar called Art. 32 (writ jurisdiction for FR enforcement) the “heart and soul” because without it FRs would be mere declarations → Contrast with Art. 226 (HC writ — wider coverage, not just FRs) → Curative petition vs review petition.
Q6. Compare the process of removing judges in India with any two other democracies. What lessons can India draw from global best practices?
Approach: India (Art. 124(4), Judges Enquiry Act 1968, Special Majority, no successful impeachment) → UK (Supreme Court judges removed by Queen on address by both Houses, also based on JSC mechanism) → USA (Article III judges — same constitutional standard: “good behaviour”, Senate trial for impeachment) → Germany (Federal Constitutional Court — can be removed by court itself on application) → Lessons: India’s process is cumbersome but protective of independence; issue is more about sub-constitutional appointments to tribunals/commissions.
Q7. “Judicial independence and judicial accountability are not contradictory values but complementary pillars of a constitutional democracy.” Comment.
Approach: Define both terms → Independence: free from executive/legislative interference in adjudication → Accountability: to the Constitution, to litigants, to public trust (but not to government) → Mechanisms: contempt, impeachment, collegium transparency, collegium resolutions made public, RTI application to SC → International comparison: UK JSC as model of accountability without compromising independence → Conclusion: independence protects from partisan pressure; accountability ensures legitimacy and public confidence.
